In the matter of the Derek Chauvin murder trial, we turn to a notable criminal law attorney, one who does not belong to the vast right wing conspiracy.
That is, we turn to Alan Dershowitz, a man of integrity who has consistently defended the criminal justice system. This time, Dershowitz points out the level of jury intimidation involved in the Chauvin guilty verdicts.
He begins with a simple observation, namely that Rep. Maxine
Waters specifically chose to intimidate the trial jurors, in a manner that
recalled past efforts by the KKK. Considering that Waters had previously adopted Storm
Trooper tactics in an effort to incite public harassment of Trump
administration officials, at least she remains consistent in her bigotry.
Lawyer and liberal pundit Alan Dershowitz accused
Rep. Maxine Waters of using KKK tactics to intimidate jurors in the Derek
Chauvin murder trial.
“The Klan would march outside of courthouses and
threaten all kinds of reprisals if the jury ever dared convict a white person
or acquit a black person,” Dershowitz said in an interview on Newsmax.
Her remarks should have produced a mistrial:
Dershowitz believes that her comments should have
resulted in a mistrial.
“Her message was clearly intended to get to the
jury: ‘If you will acquit or if you find the charge less than murder, we will
burn down your buildings. We will burn down your businesses. We will attack
you. We will do what happened to the witness — blood on their door,'”
Dershowitz explained.
“The judge, of course, wouldn’t grant a mistrial
because then he’d be responsible for the riots that would ensue, even though it
was Waters who was responsible,” he added.
In a Newsweek article Dershowitz expanded on his concept. It is not just that a not guilty verdict would have provoked mass violence. Surely, in our doxing age, the jurors understood that if they had voted the wrong way they would have been attacked personally.
Dershowitz argued that the
judge should have sequestered the jury. At the least, the actions of Waters and other officials will provide grounds for appeal. Surely, the jurors understood the potential consequences of their actions:
The American people can have no confidence that
this jury verdict was not tainted by the threats of violence made outside the
courthouse. Those threats almost certainly seeped into the jury room. American
justice, and in particular our system of trial by jury, cannot survive if
jurors are under "extraordinary pressure" to render verdicts that
reduce the threat of outside violence. Trial by jury is a fragile institution
that requires jurors to be insulated from external pressures. The judge in the
Chauvin case recognized that jurors could well be influenced by the danger they
might face if they rendered an unpopular verdict: He took the unusual step of
keeping the jurors' names secret. This sent a message to jurors that
publicizing their names might endanger their safety. Yet the media provided
demographic profiles of these jurors nonetheless, clearly allowing them to be
identified by friends and neighbors.
Not only did the judge refuse to sequester the
jurors—he also gave them inadequate instructions about listening to outside
sources. He repeatedly told them not to watch "the news." But
television news is not the only source of information in the modern age. The
vast majority of people get their information from other sources, such as the
internet, podcasts, radio and television shows that are not necessarily
"the news." There are also myriad personal contacts with friends and
family members.
Everyone in Minneapolis was on edge about what the
jury would do in this case and what the reaction would be if the jury failed to
convict on the murder charges. It is inconceivable that at least some jurors
were not aware that if the verdict was anything short of murder, there would be
riots, violence and threats made to the jurors themselves. This reality may not
have consciously influenced the jurors. They may all honestly believe that the
evidence proves Chauvin's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is highly
likely that this reality may still have influenced, in subtle ways, the
decision whether to convict for murder instead of merely manslaughter. The case
for manslaughter was strong. The cases for second- and third-degree murder were
highly questionable, both as a matter of law and fact. Yet, the jury quickly
returned verdicts of guilty on all three charges.
Sequestration of jurors for an entire trial is
difficult, cumbersome and expensive. But I believe that the Supreme Court
of the United States should rule that in cases like this one, where there are
pressures to convict for fear of mass violence, the jury must be sequestered
throughout the entire trial. If this is not mandated, the constitutional rights
of defendants in such cases may well be compromised.
Citizens have the constitutional right to protest
outside a courthouse. Even a congresswoman has that right. No one should try to
curtail the First Amendment. The correct constitutional approach is to permit
protests while insulating the jury from them. Sequestration strikes the
appropriate constructional balance between the right of protesters to demand
convictions and the right of a defendant to a fair trial that is uninfluenced
by those same demands.
Among the casualties in Minneapolis was the right to a fair trial. Unhinged rhetoric has consequences. Legitimizing political violence has consequences. Obviously, those who believe in summary justice do not care about minor matters like criminal procedure. And yet, criminal procedure and the due process of law is what protects us from justice by lynching.
Sanity.
ReplyDeleteI used to read of "Minnesota Nice". Clearly, "It's DEAD, Jim."
What we lost is Minneapolis? Sanity. Buried in an unmarked grave.
ReplyDeleteAn em-pathetic judgment. The direct evidence does not support the verdicts. A progressive adverse reaction started inside the police car and probably earlier. The probable causes are drug overdose, comorbidities, stress (e.g. criminal conscience) forcing, and a Covid-19 case. The knee across the shoulder blades to restrain violent action, and a lack of forensic evidence of physical trauma, suggests that the alleged cause was unlikely to be a factor in his death.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Chauvin was presumed guilty, and his innocence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to appease the mob. Burn the warlock.
A trial by press, a trial by jury, a verdict that is apparently supported by tbe mob ("democracy") in denial of the direct evidence. A witch hunt. A warlock trial. A multitrimester protest, in progress, to stoke diversity, inequity, and exclusion.
ReplyDelete